Some Much Needed Comic Relief

            While I ended up enjoying (and more importantly, understanding) Richard II by the end of Friday’s discussion, I have to say it wasn’t my favorite. I always have a hard time with history plays, as history (i.e.: names, dates, familial ties, etc.) is not my strong suit or my cup of tea. So when I saw that we were also reading 1 Henry IV, the sequel, I shuddered a little. But after reading Act 1.2, I am so happy to finally see comic relief, thanks to Prince Harry and Falstaff! Their friendship seems to be based on friendly mocking, silly banter, and sarcasm, which I found refreshing after the seriousness of Richard II.

            In the very start of the scene, Harry is already using his language to cleverly poking fun at Falstaff for being overweight by using expressions like “fat-witted” (2; drunk, or dumb) and “Come roundly, roundly” (19; get to the point). Falstaff fires back with, “[M]ajesty I should say, for grace though wilt have none […] not so much as will serve to be prologue to egg and butter” (14-18). In other words, he is implying that the prince doesn’t even have enough grace to bless a small snack with.

            I was most surprised by the amount of sexual innuendo in the Prince’s dialogue, particularly lines 27-34. While I noted the obvious “purse”/genitalia reference, as well as “snatched” and “lay by”, the Norton brought to my attention the other sexual references: “spent with,” “lie back” (duh!), and “low and high” referring to an erection. Whoa dude!

            My favorite moment – and probably the most nonsensical – of this conversation is this exchange:

FALSTAFF: By the Lord, thou sayest true, lad. And is not my hostess of the tavern a most sweet wench?
PRINCE HARRY: As the honey of Hybla, my old lad of the castle. And is not a buff jerkin a most sweet robe of durance?
FALSTAFF: How now, how now, mad wag? What, in thy quips and thy quiddities? What a plague have I to do with a buff jerkin?
PRINCE HARRY: Why, what a pox have I to do with my hostess of the tavern?

            Here, Prince Harry is mocking Falstaff’s “stupid” question by retorting with an equally ridiculous question, about the durability of the sheriff’s uniform. I also love Prince Harry’s use of the expression “what the pox” to foil Falstaff’s “what a plague.” This is some classic male battle of the wits.

            As I was reading this scene, I had to remind myself that Harry/Hal is a prince. And here he is, hanging out with the likes of thieves and robbers, plotting practical jokes with a low-life of sorts. Huh? But instead of being horrified or shocked, I actually found it humbling to see a prince actually enjoying himself, being funny.

            After we enjoy several pages of sexual puns and sarcasm a la Shakespeare, the humor dies down as we learn Prince Harry’s true motives: “Yet herein will I imitate the sun,/Who doth permit the base contagious clouds/To smother up his beauty from the world,/That, when he please again to be himself,/Being wanted, he may be more wondered at/By breaking through the foul and ugly mist/Of vapors that did seem to strangle him” (175-181). Basically, Prince Harry reveals in the monologue that he is only hanging out with this sordid bunch so that when he reveals his true character, everyone will be that much more impressed with him; he will appear more desirable to be king.

            I know that some may interpret Prince Harry as using Falstaff to his advantage, and – who knows? – maybe by the end as this all unfolds that will prove true. But for now I actually sympathize with him; he is acting as many sons/daughters act to gain their parents’ approval, to feel the need to prove themselves. Sure, this may be a dirty way to do it, seeing how much Falstaff respects him. But I don’t know, I don’t see it as so horrendous.

Come Roundly or say what you mean!

Why doesn't Shakespeare just say what he means? Or why does he take so long to say something simple? These were questions brought up in my group last Friday. For some reason this was a question I have always taken for granted having forever been fascinated by sounds. And who else has better sounds than Shakespeare? In my mind it was an automatic response, that Shakespeare's long windedness was there to create a parade of sounds. I'm so enchanted I have never paused to think about the function of the language. Architect Frank Lloyd Wright's famous guidelines of design was " form follows function". Does the same apply to Shakespeare's language or is it all just a glorious form without function?

There may be no better person's language to break down than Sir. John Falstaff. In Act 2 sc 2
"FALSTAFF
I am accursed to rob in that thief's company: the
rascal hath removed my horse, and tied him I know
not where. If I travel but four foot by the squier
further afoot, I shall break my wind. Well, I doubt
not but to die a fair death for all this, if I
'scape hanging for killing that rogue. I have
forsworn his company hourly any time this two and
twenty years, and yet I am bewitched with the
rogue's company. If the rascal hath not given me
medicines to make me love him, I'll be hanged; it
could not be else: I have drunk medicines. Poins!
Hal! a plague upon you both! Bardolph! Peto!
I'll starve ere I'll rob a foot further. An 'twere
not as good a deed as drink, to turn true man and to
leave these rogues, I am the veriest varlet that
chewed with a tooth. Eight yards of uneven
ground is threescore and ten miles afoot with me;
and the stony-hearted villains know it well enough:
a plague upon it when thieves cannot be true one to another!
Whew! A plague upon you all! Give me my horse, you
rogues; give me my horse, and be hanged!

First this speech serves the practical function of setting the scene for Elizabethan audiences. In our own theatres today with projections, realistic sets, and modern sound design, a stolen horse could be shown in a variety of different ways. However for The King's men this was not an option. The Globe theatre had no scenery it was a fixed space that was altered minimally for performances. If Shakespeare wanted the audiences to see something they would have to hear it described through the actors on the stage.
It takes Falstaff eighteen lines to tell his friends to quit the joke and give him back his horse. Had this been a contemporary play Falstaff probably just would have said something along the lines of " Give me my #$%^ horse back before I kill you bros, remind me why I hang out with you again F#$%". However the wealth of information provided by Falstaff is beyond the quick to the point prose of today. For one thing amongst the hyperbolic complaining there is a real sense of affection towards Poins and Hal even as Falstaff threatens to kill them with the lines " Yet I am bewitched with the Rogue's company.... " If the rascal hath not given medicines to make me love him, I'll be hanged". These lines add so much depth to Falstaff's character, not mention create a context for the relationship between himself and Hal. Within a speech that at first appears as verbose hot air that rambles only for comical purpose show cases the unconditional love Falstaff has for Hal. This love and relationship established here in this speech serves as a foil to the relationship to Hal and King Henry. King Henry has none of this sort of love for his own son and confesses early on within the play his desire for his son to be Harry Percy. All of this creating a deeper complexity and context for future action within the play. It is in this speech which proves that form does indeed follow function!

Kenneth Branagh's Henry V and Falstaff

I REALLY enjoyed watching Kenneth Branagh's version of Henry V! There were so many things that I found fascinating in the production it was hard to pick just one to write a blog post about. What I thought was really interesting was how Branagh incorporated the character of Falstaff into the movie by using flashbacks to Henry/Harry’s past; when Henry used to hang out with the “wrong” crowd at pubs etc. I found this decision to incorporate Falstaff very interesting because although Falstaff is mentioned in the text of Henry V, he doesn’t have any actual lines in the play and appears nowhere on stage/in the stage directions etc. I think that by using these flashbacks this film sets up an extreme contrast between the man that Henry is now and the man that Henry used to be.

For example one of the flashbacks is to a scene of laughter and drinking in the bar and it depicts an interaction between Falstaff and Henry. In this scene when Falstaff and Henry see each other they embrace. To me this signifies that they must have been close or had some sort of bond in order to greet each other with an embrace. And later on in the scene Falstaff is reminding Henry that when he is king that he can banish all others but he must not banish Jack Falstaff. Yet in this scene the present Henry doesn’t say anything all that viewers hear is a voice of a later Henry saying “I know thee not old man”; which is a reference to Henry IV part two when now king, Henry denies ever knowing Falstaff. I think the way that this scene is dramatically set up is great and really plays up the transformation of Henry. I think that by having the voice of a later Henry saying “I know thee not old man” really shows how Henry no longer associates with his past less than “desirable” friends. What I also think this scene does wonderfully is to cause viewers to sympathize with Falstaff a little, because he and Henry were friends and then Henry completely forgot and disowned Falstaff as soon as he became king. I know at least when reading the plays I felt a little sympathy towards Falstaff, especially when reading Henry V because Falstaff is apparently dying because of Henry V. I initially thought that when reading the play because Falstaff was excluded it was the right decision because this play is about the life of Henry V etc. and that having Falstaff in the play would have distracted from how great of a king Henry had become. But, now after seeing this dramatic interpretation of it I think that if Falstaff was included in the play it would have been really interesting to see. In the end I really enjoyed seeing Branagh’s interpretation of Henry V and I think that by including Falstaff, Branagh really showcased the transformation of Henry from an immature young boy, who steals and associates with the “wrong” crowd, into a valiant and great King